Hassencamp v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 February 1903
• Docket Number: 464.
• Citation: 120 F. 475
• Parties: HASSENCAMP v. MUTUAL BEN. LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

120 F. 475

HASSENCAMP v. MUTUAL BEN. LIFE INS. CO.

No. 464.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 3, 1903

Robert M. McLane and Edgar Allan Poe, for plaintiff in error.

John J Donaldson and John D. Parker, for defendant in error.

The facts in this case are substantially as follows: The defendant in error is a corporation under the laws of New Jersey, doing a life insurance business in the state of Maryland. On the 11th of October, 1890, Alexander Hassencamp applied for a policy, and in consideration of the payment of the required premium the company issued to him on that day a life policy for the sum of $3,000, in which Juliet V Hassencamp, his wife, the present plaintiff in error, was the beneficiary. Alexander Hassencamp died on the 6th day of June, 1901, at Dr. Walter's sanitarium, in Wernersville Pa. One of the stipulations contained in the application made by Hassencamp for the policy was as follows: 'I also agree that if, within two years from the date of this policy I shall, without the consent of the company, reside or travel elsewhere than in or to the United States, Canada, or Europe, * * * or within such period shall commit suicide, while sane or insane, the policy hereby applied for is to be null and void. ' Shortly after the death of the assured, the plaintiff in error made her claim to the company for the loss. She followed the instructions issued by the insurance company for making death claims, among which was one as follows: 'When a coroner's inquest is held, a certified copy of the inquest must accompany the proofs. ' In accordance with this requirement, the plaintiff in error attached to her proof of loss a certified copy of the proceedings and verdict of the coroner's inquest, held over the body of her deceased husband in the county of Berks, where he died, in which the jury found 'that, according to the evidence and inspection of the body, we, the jury, agree to the following verdict: that the above-named committed suicide by shooting himself in the right temple with a pistol, and in our opinion the act was premeditated. ' The plaintiff in error also accompanied her claim by the certificate of the attending physician, Robert Walter, who stated that he was the attending physician of Alexander Hassencamp; that he had known him three weeks; that his final illness was complicated with or preceded by another disease called 'insomnia melancholia'; that he had died from suicide by shooting. On receipt of the claim, accompanied by these proofs, the insurance company declined to pay the insurance money, on the ground that the proofs of loss sent up showed that the death of the assured was by suicide, within two years from the issuing of the policy; and thereupon this suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, and was tried before a jury at April term, 1902, of said court. The plaintiff in error declared for the amount of the policy, and defendant in error denied the right of recovery on the ground of suicide of assured within two years from date of policy.

The plaintiff in error, to support the issue on her part, proved the execution of the policy, the punctual payment of the two yearly premiums, the death of the assured, furnishing of proofs of death, and refusal of the company, as set out in a letter, to pay the amount of the policy on the ground that the insured had committed suicide, in violation of an agreement contained in his application for the policy. She also proved that the proofs of death were furnished on blanks received from the company for that purpose, and were made out by her two brothers-in-law, for her, by her order. Thereupon she rested her case in chief. The defendant in error then over the objection of the plaintiff in error, introduced the proofs of death which had been forwarded to the company. These consisted of the statement of the plaintiff in error, giving number and amount of the policy, the place of her husband's death, and that she was the widow and beneficiary in the policy; the statement of a friend as to the death of the assured and the identity of the body; the statement of the attending physician; the undertaker's certificate; and a certified copy of the coroner's inquest. The admission of this evidence for the defendant in error constitutes the first bill of exceptions. The defendant in error rested, and the plaintiff in error, in rebuttal, introduced one Liszman, who testified that he knew Alexander Hassencamp in his lifetime; that he saw his body on the morning of the 7th of June, 1901, the day after his death, in the undertaking establishment, about a mile from the sanitarium; that there was a wound in the head of the deceased in the temple, very small, but that there were no powder marks about it. The plaintiff in error, in her own behalf, testified that the deceased had then been in the employment of Ullman, Boykin & Co., at Baltimore, for about 10 years; that he was suffering with nervous prostration, and had gone to the sanitarium on the 18th of May preceding his death; that he was getting a salary of $2,100 a year, and that his place was kept open for him by his employers; that he had some money in the bank, and was in easy circumstances; that the relations between him and his family were always affectionate; that he was temperate and regular in his habits, and that she never knew him to have a pistol; that the news of his death came to her as a surprise. W. A. Boykin was introduced by the plaintiff in error, and testified that Hassencamp had been employed by the firm to which he belonged as a bookkeeper and confidential secretary, for about 9 years, at a salary of $2,100 a year, or thereabouts; that Hassencamp was an industrious, high-toned man, of good habits and correct in his business transactions; that his health broke down on the 6th of December 1900, and that he was given a leave of absence without limit, for rest and recuperation; that Hassencamp went first to New York, and then to Bermuda, and while in the latter place he wrote letters to the house, which were very intelligent; that there was nothing in his actions while in the employment of the firm to lead to the fear that he might commit suicide. He was assured, when he left, that his place would be kept open for him whenever he wanted it. This concluded the...